Re: Creating Our Own Reality

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 04/21/2001 12:28:30 PM Atlantic Daylight Time,

Rainbolily@... writes:

> If one is capable of being in total non-judgement,

> in complete peace, then divine can move to manifest anything at

> any time. This is not woo-woo metaphysics or mystic this is

> reality. Your/my reality is a direct result of what I give my attention to.

Hi Bo, Everyone,

Whenever I see this assumption that we create our own reality if " only we can

bring ourselves to think the right thoughts, be totally positive, etc. "

there's a part of me that wants to scream. We are not that powerful and

there are often situations where people find themselves caught up in the

playing out of much larger karmic dances that they have absolutely no control

over.

> What I judge to be negative is what I will draw to me to experience/

> to forgive or not, and the experience will continue or grow until

> I am capable of learning the lesson and moving on to the next one.

> At some point, one works with this material long enough to realize

> that it is the only game there is.

Certainly this is true for some of us under some circumstances but what do

you suppose the lesson was for infants thrown into open fires by the Nazis,

or children born in Ethiopia where there is an eighty percent likelihood they

will die from starvation, or women struggling with breast cancer, or the

millions trapped beneath the rubble after major earthquakes? Are these

people's experience really the result of " wooly thinking? "

> One pointed attention will manifest the desired outcome. But, often,

> most people have conflicting desires. So, the desired manifestation

> cannot happen because of the inherent conflicts in the subconscious

> which are not yet conscious.

Again, not always. I think that all too often, the best we can do is learn

to accept what life brings and maybe after many many years of practice, we

can learn to be still, to center deep within and have some modicum of control

over our reaction to things. However, this idea that we can manifest

whatever we want in life is troublesome to me for a couple of reasons. First

it leads to a " blaming the victim " kind of mentality that is counter

productive to the development of compassion for others. Even if it is true

that people find themselves in their current situation based on karmic laws,

what is real and most important is the context they find themselves in

currently. If people are hungry they need to be fed, if they are being

victimized they need to be rescued, etc. Believing that we are responsible

for everything that happens to us in this world is often just another way of

trying to put ground under our feet... trying to have control over life which

is mostly uncontrollable.

Love,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

<< Whenever I see this assumption that we create our own reality if " only we

can

bring ourselves to think the right thoughts, be totally positive, etc. "

there's a part of me that wants to scream >>

Suzanne,

I've done this battle with myself as well. Read the book. When I said, " this

is incredible, " I did not mean it was incredible Alice

would have stated what she did, it was incredibly synchronistic.

I did not want to write on this subject this morning. Normally, I pick

my email up from various boxes starting around 6-7 am. This morning,

I knew I should write on this and I dreaded it. I don't like the keyboard

with this new computer, I don't like the new computer, and I wish I'd

asked for a Compaq instead of letting myself be bought this G-4 Mac.

It's slower, it's more expensive, it's unweildy, and it's not logical.

Anyway, it's my computer and I DO love creating in Adobe on it.

So, c'est la vie, my reality doesn't include the perfect machine.

Suzanne, I have been round and round and round this. I can't debate

the whole enchilada with you here, it would involve an encyclopedic

work, and I don't have the patience to write that long ... that's why

I've never written a book, I want to live it, create it, not write it, too

slow

for my fire. It's also why I love poetry and physics, they are very fast

explanatory mechanisms. Reading a huge novel I want to scream,

" condense, condense, all this wordiness into a few lines. "

Anyway, if it was worth debating, it's probably worth exploring

the book, " Creating Miracles, " ... it's an exceptional book. I've

never met anyone who claimed to understand ALL of Divine.

But some understand a helluvalot more than others. And, women

have survived attempted rapes, by being in unconditional love,

by knowing that in their perfect love they are invincible, and they

have reduced would be victimizers to blithering idiots crying in shame.

Knowing and living it are two different things ... I don't claim

to be able to live it, I am just trying to work on the sculpture of

life one little chip and polish at a time.

Much Love,

~ bo

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 04/21/2001 3:26:29 PM Atlantic Daylight Time,

Rainbolily@... writes:

> And, women

> have survived attempted rapes, by being in unconditional love,

> by knowing that in their perfect love they are invincible, and they

> have reduced would be victimizers to blithering idiots crying in shame.

I know, Bo....I just don't want the women who were raped, who couldn't be in

anything else but fear, thinking they are some how responsible or

spiritually inferior.

Nuff said! Thanks for letting us know about the book.

Love,

Suzanne

[Guest guest]

Suzanne

I believe it was Victor el who said we cannot control what happens

to us, but we have the freedom to decide what our attitude we will have

towards what comes.Considering who he was and what his life manifested,

I would tend to think he knew what he was talking about.

My problem is all the superlatives. 'Total " non judgements, " complete'

peace, " completeness'of faith " impeccable " environment,not allowing any

doubt " impeccable " , thought and behavior, physically " totally " clean.

None of the above would ever be possible for me. I am a limited human

being and " complete " " impeccable " do not describe any part of me. I tried

for years to be " perfect " ..it was a totally No go. I will always be less

than perfect, but still I have know some manifestation of the divine ,

arriving unasked and unbidden.

Wasn't " complete faith " , according to Jung an impossibility because it

forced its opposite to manifest itself? Isn't that the problem ?, I

thought Jung said,to why fanatics are fanatics? Because they cannot have

complete faith, there is always a niggling doubt..

Maybe I misunderstood Jung, but I do not see how faith can be " worked

on " or forced.

Absolutely no doubt? working on it?. How does one work on it? The only

things in life I do not doubt is the experiences I have personally had.

Everything else I must believe in the experiences of others...and that

is where doubt begins.

I agree with you ,Suzanne, from where I sit, I cannot bring myself to

believe that I am so powerful that I can force my will on all reality. I

also cannot maintain the clearness of the single eye for very long, and

have to come back over and over. I do believe along with el, that

we can control our attitudes, although that too is a neverending job. My

single word for my peace of mind and soul is " acceptance " for whatever

comes.There must be a golden mean between the two, some things I can

change, somethings I cannot.That is where acceptance is the attitude of choice.

Toni

Brita44@... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 04/21/2001 12:28:30 PM Atlantic Daylight Time,

> Rainbolily@... writes:

>

> > If one is capable of being in total non-judgement,

> > in complete peace, then divine can move to manifest anything at

> > any time. This is not woo-woo metaphysics or mystic this is

> > reality. Your/my reality is a direct result of what I give my attention to.

>

> Hi Bo, Everyone,

>

> Whenever I see this assumption that we create our own reality if " only we can

> bring ourselves to think the right thoughts, be totally positive, etc. "

> there's a part of me that wants to scream. We are not that powerful and

> there are often situations where people find themselves caught up in the

> playing out of much larger karmic dances that they have absolutely no control

> over.

>

> > What I judge to be negative is what I will draw to me to experience/

> > to forgive or not, and the experience will continue or grow until

> > I am capable of learning the lesson and moving on to the next one.

> > At some point, one works with this material long enough to realize

> > that it is the only game there is.

>

> Certainly this is true for some of us under some circumstances but what do

> you suppose the lesson was for infants thrown into open fires by the Nazis,

> or children born in Ethiopia where there is an eighty percent likelihood they

> will die from starvation, or women struggling with breast cancer, or the

> millions trapped beneath the rubble after major earthquakes? Are these

> people's experience really the result of " wooly thinking? "

>

> > One pointed attention will manifest the desired outcome. But, often,

> > most people have conflicting desires. So, the desired manifestation

> > cannot happen because of the inherent conflicts in the subconscious

> > which are not yet conscious.

>

> Again, not always. I think that all too often, the best we can do is learn

> to accept what life brings and maybe after many many years of practice, we

> can learn to be still, to center deep within and have some modicum of control

> over our reaction to things. However, this idea that we can manifest

> whatever we want in life is troublesome to me for a couple of reasons. First

> it leads to a " blaming the victim " kind of mentality that is counter

> productive to the development of compassion for others. Even if it is true

> that people find themselves in their current situation based on karmic laws,

> what is real and most important is the context they find themselves in

> currently. If people are hungry they need to be fed, if they are being

> victimized they need to be rescued, etc. Believing that we are responsible

> for everything that happens to us in this world is often just another way of

> trying to put ground under our feet... trying to have control over life which

> is mostly uncontrollable.

>

> Love,

>

> Suzanne

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Isn't faith a gift? We cannot grab it or harness it, but only receive it.

Jung will always maintain that there is no faith without its opposite,

doubt. That is why he is so often quoted as saying only what we

experience can we know. To believe is to put your consciousness firmly

on another's experience and accept it as true. Jung said, he didn't have

to believe because he KNEW. Once one experiences the numinous one

knows.No more twisting oneself into knots to force faith.

I totally agree that a receptive and loving stance is the invitation to

the numinous.St would have understood Jung's experiences. He knew ,

and didn't have to believe anymore., wouldn't you say?

Toni.

wrote:

>

>

> > Wasn't " complete faith " , according to Jung an impossibility

> > because it forced its opposite to manifest itself? Isn't that the

> > problem ?, I thought Jung said,to why fanatics are fanatics?

> > Because they cannot have complete faith, there is always a niggling

> > doubt..

> >

>

> After a dozen years ( starting '72) making my self miserable trying

> to achieve perfect faith, admitting no doubts, it began to sink in on

> me that I was seriously misapplying an early lesson in dialectics:

> the good is the enemy of the better and the better is the enemy of

> the best. With limited understanding, I found it easy to take that

> to mean that I should accept nothing less than the highest

> accomplishment of faith, and doubt was a hindrance to that. But a

> dozen years of self-righteous misery helped me apprehend an oft

> quoted (but seldom appreciated) bit of wisdom in a new light St

> admonishes in 1 Corinthians 13 " ....now I know in part, but

> then...even as also I am known...now abideth faith, hope and

> love...but the greatest of these is love. I began to ask myself if my

> focus on faith wasn't an instance of favoring the good over the best.

> Following on that, I began to wonder if doubts, were actually the

> frontier of hope and by attempting to bolster faith by abolishing

> hope, I was actually favoring the good over the better. So now I'm

> entertaining the image of faith as a door which hope becons us to

> pass through. I wouldn't expect to participate in love's purpose by

> standing at the threshold and doing battle with thee doubts that are

> (consistent with love's purpose) an invitation to be drawn forward in

> hope.

>

> Hence, my understanding of " complete faith " is not a comprehensive

> totality, but awareness and receptivity to the purpose and means of

> divine Love.

>

> If I can be forgiven for bringing St. into this, I offer it

> simply due to the fact that it made my " pilgrimage of the soul " much

> less arduous, more rewarding and far less obnoxious to others. I'll

> be glad to know if this makes any sense to anyone else around the

> fire.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> In a message dated 4/23/01 8:56:45 AM, awalker@w... writes:

>

> << I began to wonder if doubts, were actually the

> frontier of hope and by attempting to bolster faith by abolishing

> hope, I was actually favoring the good over the better. >>

>

> This is wonderful! Thanks.

Thanks for the responses! For the sake of clarity I'd like to rephrase

that, as I actually meant it, though I think you got the intended

message! What I meant to say was:

>>I began to wonder if doubts, were actually the frontier of hope and

by attempting to bolster faith by abolishing <<<doubt>>> [NOT hope], I

was actually favoring the good over the better.

Again, thanks,

APMW

BTW, I'd come and meet you in the Mt A's Cemetery, but I'm scheduled

elsewhere!

[Guest guest]

> ,

> Isn't faith a gift? We cannot grab it or harness it, but only

receive it.

That's a pretty basic principle to which I subscribe.

> Jung will always maintain that there is no faith without its

> opposite, doubt.

I'd have to expect that to be so if faith is to operate in a

psychicly balanced context. But I must confess to some reservations

as to whether that is a valid application of the principle. Given

that Jung's framework is empirical we're talking about what is

meassurable and reproducible. But, when I talk about faith as the Gift

and fruit of the Holy Spirit. I'm refering to some things that occur

outside the domain of the measurable and reproducible, as such we

place them in the domain of " mystery " . Ultimately, though I'm not sure

that I'm not trying to distinguish six from half a dozen.

> That is why he is so often quoted as saying only what we experience

> can we know. To believe is to put your consciousness firmly on

> another's experience and accept it as true.

This is certainly comforting in that it helps me identify some purpose

in the torment I endured on the way to recognition. (Was that

unbelievably Platonic, or what!)

> Jung said, he didn't have to believe because he KNEW. Once one

> experiences the numinous one knows. No more twisting oneself into

> knots to force faith.

He also said that direct experience is a dangerous thing, for which

reason I'm willing to wonder whether most theology is simply a

spectrum of doubt systematically arranged in an institutionally

acceptable pattern.

> St would have understood Jung's experiences. He knew,

> and didn't have to believe anymore., wouldn't you say?

Since I'm constantly in need of asking, " will the Real St. please

stand up... " that's a speculation I can niether confirm nor deny.

Thanks for the response!

APMW

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

Loved your definition of theology. Having studied it with the

Dominicans(allowed in as a female lay person) I decided the whole thing

appeared as an elaborated 'tinker toy' construct, which if you removed

one small section would fall of its own weight.

Although I needed to learn more theology for the courses I taught, I

personally took reading , and studying Scripture as preferred study.

>From my own experience I would second Jung. Direct experience is a

dangerous thing, sometimes scaring one almost to death, or on the other

hand making the way open to a " mana' personality, which could be a very

dangerous inflation,and an awful temptation.

I was being a little facetious about St . Figured if he fell off a

horse, was blinded and heard Jesus, he probably would have realized that

he had had a numinous experience. . In my opinion, no one can figure out

, because we don't have a complete picture of a complex

personality. (Furthermore, I will neither be silent, nor cover my hair

in the assembly.)

Probably one of the reasons I am no longer a member of the Church.(The

silencing, not the hair covering)

I do believe you are trying to distinguish six from a half dozen. I

believe Jung was speaking from personal experience. As far as faith

being measurable...doesn't need to be. Each of us, in the middle of the

night know whether we have it and whether doubt creeps in. All our

experiences must come through the psyche, even faith. Lots of our

feelings are neither measurable or reducible.But if Jung is right, there

is no feeling, faith included that does not contain its opposite. So,

doubt would always have to be present and acknowledged. Even the "

perfect' if it were, would have to be filtered through an imperfect,

fallible human being.

I imagine even of Egypt ( stylits) must have fought a

losing battle against doubt, or as he put it, " fighting with satan, " on

top of that pole he was perched on.

By the way, I believe Holy Mother Church was unhappy about the

spontaneous outbreaks of the Holy Spirit in the first couple of

centuries, because they had lost control. Making " faith " one of its

prerequisites for membership, and telling all no salvation without the

church's brand of faith, consolidated Rome's power. Faith then became

something you could " learn " and then practice according to the Church.

The " gift of faith " then became nothing more than a seal of approval for

the Churches teachings.

It seems to me, that putting no restrictions on the " gift of faith " ,

numinous experiences can and do happen to all sorts of people,

believers and non believers alike. The numinous is not, then only

filtered through the organization of the Church. " The Spirit goes where

He will.And, darn it all, the Church no longer owns the Holy

Spirit.Imagine that!

Toni

wrote:

>

>

> > ,

> > Isn't faith a gift? We cannot grab it or harness it, but only

> receive it.

>

> That's a pretty basic principle to which I subscribe.

>

> > Jung will always maintain that there is no faith without its

> > opposite, doubt.

>

> I'd have to expect that to be so if faith is to operate in a

> psychicly balanced context. But I must confess to some reservations

> as to whether that is a valid application of the principle. Given

> that Jung's framework is empirical we're talking about what is

> meassurable and reproducible. But, when I talk about faith as the Gift

> and fruit of the Holy Spirit. I'm refering to some things that occur

> outside the domain of the measurable and reproducible, as such we

> place them in the domain of " mystery " . Ultimately, though I'm not sure

> that I'm not trying to distinguish six from half a dozen.

>

> > That is why he is so often quoted as saying only what we experience

> > can we know. To believe is to put your consciousness firmly on

> > another's experience and accept it as true.

>

> This is certainly comforting in that it helps me identify some purpose

> in the torment I endured on the way to recognition. (Was that

> unbelievably Platonic, or what!)

>

> > Jung said, he didn't have to believe because he KNEW. Once one

> > experiences the numinous one knows. No more twisting oneself into

> > knots to force faith.

>

> He also said that direct experience is a dangerous thing, for which

> reason I'm willing to wonder whether most theology is simply a

> spectrum of doubt systematically arranged in an institutionally

> acceptable pattern.

>

> > St would have understood Jung's experiences. He knew,

> > and didn't have to believe anymore., wouldn't you say?

>

> Since I'm constantly in need of asking, " will the Real St. please

> stand up... " that's a speculation I can niether confirm nor deny.

>

> Thanks for the response!

>

> APMW

>

>

>